There are many quiet TWiki deployments, e.g. installations typically not featured in Codev because the admin person chose not to participate in our community. The TWikiInstallation directory lists some deployments, but it is by no means a comprehensive representation of the installations. Like with any well known software project there is a constant flow of new installations and retired installations. In a way, this topic here is the glass half full version of BewareOfTheQuietLeavers.

I could add a few hundred more public installations. The number of new installations outweights the number of retired installations by a large factor. And there is another fact, the number of downloads is ever increasing...

While I applaude the increase in the number of TWiki installations, as I have cautioned before, to assert that TWiki is doing well (i.e. at least as good as it was before) you'd need to show the maintenance or improvement of market share. I.e. it might be great that we have 1,000 extra installations this year over 300 last year but this means little without knowing that there were or were not in total 100,000 new wikis this year compared with 600 last year. As I mentioned before, getting an installation of TWiki to register itself at TWiki.org would at least give statistics for the administrator too lazy to fill in the form.

Further, be careful of comparing BewareOfTheQuietLeavers to this topic. The quiet leavers we are most concerned about are those TWikiContributors who have built considerable the expertise and knowledge of TWiki's workings, have knowledge spanning multiple years and have contria multitude of topics here on Codev. Them leaving or enacting a UnfriendlyFork / ProjectFork is a serious matter. Installations coming or going is less so, especially as competing products build a TWiki topic-porting or TWiki-compatible mode.

Even if you had installation numbers they say nothing for the importance of the installations - this is why I was eager, and subsequently disappointed about the rumour that the perl6-porters were using TWiki. Most PerlMonger groups use KWiki, and because they know Perl and are driven to getting the best out of it, so getting them to switch would be particularly valuable.

We could iterate down the TWikiContributors and compare to WebStatistics to measure the fall out thus far. If the names on the list are not relevant the list we should list the name next to the appropriate release. The same goes for your CoreTeam list.

I can give some feedback there. All the TWiki I pushed friends to install stayed
stuck in the release version they were installed, the sysadmins found TWiki too hard to upgrade . So, the sites were not dead, but do not evolve, and are progressively replaced by other systems, but you can get the illusion that they still work, as the old site is still accessible. Here are the sites:

PS: while doing this, I realized that it could be a good idea, when storing URLs
of running TWiki sites, to have a direct link to their TWiki/TWikiHistory to be
able to make automated stats of the propagation of upgrades. In the same way, having a way to know the history of the sites (how much upgrades they went through) would be nice. For instance:

Sites that did not exist before Beijing do not have the topic TWiki/Hey

Thus it could be a good idea to have in releases from now on a topic like TWiki/Rel20030201 as a "marker" to gather such stats ...

Peter, I'm not sure where you got your "unpublished" list from, but I'm sure I had registered the csci.mrs entry in the database quite a while ago. I see it is listed on the TWikiInstallation page, but that seems to have been copied from somewhere else, so I can't verify the entry date/time.

Just a heads up that you may have lost some entries somwhere along the line by accident, and may want to try finding those entries if possible.

Some TWikis using international character sets are using pre-I18N TWiki versions, e.g. this Ukrainian Linux group is fully translated to Cyrillic and using the Dec 2001 TWiki - they even have some Cyrillic WikiWords (yes, Cyrillic does have upper and lower case, unlike Japanese) .... This has turned into something of I18N rant, but it's quite interesting how some people have picked up TWiki even though it had no real CyrillicSupport. My gut feeling is that I18N support is improving takeup of TWiki outside the realm of English speaking sites, though I don't have any proof.

One example of quiet adoption is OliverEichhorn's intranet site, using TWikiOnMainframe (IBM OS/390, which is quite an unusual environment) - they were using Sep 2001 TWiki with absolutely no problems, and hence no need to log issues on TWiki.org until they ran into I18N issues with Feb 2003 TWiki code.

However, it's good not to assume TWiki is doing well unless we are sure our 'market share' is increasing or at least not decreasing, and most of the TWiki sites are upgrading to new releases (see EasierUpgrades). Of course, upgrading a site that's translated all the templates is much harder, due to TWiki's current lack of support for simple localisation (L10N) of templates and bundled webs (see discussion in InternationalisationEnhancements).